Jump to content

How unified are the four blocs?


supercoolyellow
 Share

  

346 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

[size="7"]

The Big Four Treaty Web

[/size]
 


[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102558"]The Myth Of Supergrievances[/url] thread seamed to lead into this question and also I'm [ooc]bored[/ooc] and so this thread is happening. How strong are the ties between SF, CnG, PB, and XX, and what are the future of the relationships between these blocs. When I look at the above web I created to show the treaties between the blocs, to me they look completely inseparable.

But what do you all think?



PS. My apologies if i missed a treaty, or an alliance.

PPS. It appears there is at least two mistakes in the web. The International's treaties with RnR and FOK are both MDoAPs.

Edited by supercoolyellow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Treaty webs are going to be messy, no matter which way you look at them. To say any pair of blocs are unified in general seems silly, and I believe any alliance formed between blocs would only ever be as a temporary measure. If they were truly as 'unified' as the word implies, the blocs would reside under a single name and not two.

I feel that to say the blocs are inseparable is naive, as a war can spark from any spot in the web and cause a great many conflict of interests. The ties between bloc members simply offers the means for strong mediation between conflicts. I don't think a few treaties between any two blocs is enough to cause complete unity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm just a simple Prince from a backwater Kingdom, but it would seem to me that at some point some of them pretty little lines are going to go breakin' and I just hope my folks are on the good side of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1307770477' post='2729043']
Which ones?
[/quote]
Heck if I know. MK doesn't really have any lines to break. We broke all the ones we were iffy about.

My statement isn't one of insider knowledge but of reason. When you've got that many people with that many connections, something, somewhere eventually goes haywire. I mean, look at how far apart some of those people are. Do you think GR would rush to the defense of CSN? Or PC to FARK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1307770763' post='2729045']
Heck if I know. MK doesn't really have any lines to break. We broke all the ones we were iffy about.

My statement isn't one of insider knowledge but of reason. When you've got that many people with that many connections, something, somewhere eventually goes haywire. I mean, look at how far apart some of those people are. Do you think GR would rush to the defense of CSN? Or PC to FARK?
[/quote]

Fark's the only alliance which is competent enough and has sufficient political capital to form 'another side' to give PB/DH some competition, but they won't do that. Eventually this structure will break apart I think, but it's probably a long time coming. In my expert and informed opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1307770334' post='2729042']
Now I'm just a simple Prince from a backwater Kingdom, but it would seem to me that at some point some of them pretty little lines are going to go breakin' and I just hope my folks are on the good side of it all.
[/quote]

I can think of a few instances where the lines have been broken in the time when I've paid attention and had an idea of going on. However, when there are so many alliances involved, and the political opportunity is there for so many of them, it seams that new lines are made even more quickly then they can be broken.

Edited by supercoolyellow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1307770937' post='2729048']
Fark's the only alliance which is competent enough and has sufficient political capital to form 'another side' to give PB/DH some competition, but they won't do that. Eventually this structure will break apart I think, but it's probably a long time coming. In my expert and informed opinion.
[/quote]
I think "sides" is the wrong way to look at it. I think that, despite the spotty tensions here and there, there aren't many people in this hydra who want to formalize "sides" within or among its constituent parts. There's a goddamn world of uncertainty. People don't like to act when things are uncertain. Nobody's willing to clear things up at the risk of injuring themselves, so the morass continues.

What happens is somebody shoots off over some minor thing that then blows up into a major thing and the next thing you know people are !@#$%*ing about treaties not being honored. Then we all get into coalitionism vs. literalism arguments over treaty interpretation, some people die, alliances rise, alliances fall, rinse repeat.

Welcome to CN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1307771425' post='2729051']
I think "sides" is the wrong way to look at it. I think that, despite the spotty tensions here and there, there aren't many people in this hydra who want to formalize "sides" within or among its constituent parts. There's a goddamn world of uncertainty. People don't like to act when things are uncertain. Nobody's willing to clear things up at the risk of injuring themselves, so the morass continues.

What happens is somebody shoots off over some minor thing that then blows up into a major thing and the next thing you know people are !@#$%*ing about treaties not being honored. Then we all get into coalitionism vs. literalism arguments over treaty interpretation, some people die, alliances rise, alliances fall, rinse repeat.

Welcome to CN.
[/quote]

This. In a way. There are still some sides that have developed over the whole of CN, but in general, when talking about this cluster of the treaty web, this is basically how it occurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The blocs all seem to be tied together unilaterally at best, with most of the momentum indicating a focus at the bloc level. PB/DH is still going to be adjusting to political realities post war, XX just formed and is going to be looking to assert themselves more, SF and C&G are either going to find a way to redefine themselves or fall apart. No, I really wouldn't expect to see these blocs in a coalition next war, or these blocs as they currently are, regarding SF or C&G.

Edited: grammar

Edited by eyriq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted 90-100 and yes. When every semi-major war the past 2+ years has saw them rolling in lockstep, I can't see any reason to see it differently.

MHA and Sparta have never been ones to lead anything. Look at the hoops Umbrella had Sparta jumping through last war. MHA only wakes up to help out in extreme curbstomp situations. CnG is down so low that it can't afford to lose any ties to PB/DH that it currently has, so I doubt it steps away from this cluster, and SF is in nearly the same shape these days.

When you look at it, it's a grouping of alliances who have never lost a war, or never lost a modern era war. By that I mean a Karma onwards type that is full nuke from the 25th hour and lasts 2-4 months. They have managed that by not sticking their necks out until 100 percent sure they have far superior numbers. I doubt we see them do it anytime soon.

Edited by Vol Navy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People put way too much emphasis on blocs. Sure, they can be powerful if they act as a unified political unit, but we increasingly see alliances forming blocs 'for the sake of it' and these blocs don't manipulate political lines. I can't say any of the current blocs seem to be particularly strong. They're just there. And because of that, i'm sure they will split in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1307769256' post='2729037']
It's really not a new concept to think of power in the world as being controlled by multiple blocs. Take Continuum and One Vision, for example.
[/quote]

Thats kind of a different situation, because the majority of One Vision was Q members (NPO, IRON, and later MCXA) with a few people real close (GGA, NpO, and later Echelon). We don't have anything quite like that, it'd be more like comparing Pandora's Box and Doom House then it would be to compare any of the four blocs in the opening post image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1307772790' post='2729067']
I voted 90-100 and yes. When every semi-major war the past 2+ years has saw them rolling in lockstep, I can't see any reason to see it differently.

MHA and Sparta have never been ones to lead anything. Look at the hoops Umbrella had Sparta jumping through last war. MHA only wakes up to help out in extreme curbstomp situations. CnG is down so low that it can't afford to lose any ties to PB/DH that it currently has, so I doubt it steps away from this cluster, and SF is in nearly the same shape these days.

When you look at it, it's a grouping of alliances who have never lost a war, or never lost a modern era war. By that I mean a Karma onwards type that is full nuke from the 25th hour and lasts 2-4 months. They have managed that by not sticking their necks out until 100 percent sure they have far superior numbers. I doubt we see them do it anytime soon.
[/quote]

quoted for truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Krausberg' timestamp='1307782774' post='2729109']
I thought MK would've been put up there. Even though they aren't in the blocs their MDoAP'd to 3 CnG alliances and 3 PB alliances. Just Sayin...


P.S-If I'm wrong blame the wiki :P
[/quote]
TC seemed to indicate that it was more about the blocs than the sides of the next war, which I assume was why he left MK (another other alliances that are close, yet not in a bloc) out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

INT has MDoAP's with RIA and R&R, not nothing and an ODP as you indicate. Unless something changed in the week I've been gone. And I'd be very sad if it did, because I love those two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...